Loading...
PVAC Minutes 11/07/2000 RNovember 7, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE PUBLIC VEHICLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2000 Met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building F of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRPERSON: Bryan L.S. Pease Pat Baisley William J. Csogi Clifford W. Flegal, Jr. Eric Hyde NOT PRESENT: Thomas W. Lugrin Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Maria Cruz, Code Enforcement Specialist Tom Palmer, Assistant County Attorney Page I C_OLLIER COUNTY PUB_LIC VE~,ICLE ADi;ISORY COM~ITT~EEE November 7, 2000 9:00 AM COLLIE~ COUNTy~.C~VERN~ENT~ENTER BUILDING (ADMINX~TBATION1. TMIRD 3301 E. T~I~ ~.. NAPLES. FL ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF T~I$ BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING T~ERET0, AND TMEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF TMH PKOC~EDINGS IS MADE, W~ICH ~CO~D INCLUDES THAT TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON W~ICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. III. iv. v. VI. VII. VIII. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 3, 2000 N~W BUSIN-ESS: OLD BUSINESS: A. Ratemaking Staff's Reco~mnendation B. George Cokoroglanis - Naples Taxi - Con=inued from 10/3/00 Request to O~erate a Taxi/Charter Service R~ORTS; DISCUSSION: NEXT ME~TING DATE: Ja~%uar~ 2, 2001 November 7, 2000 CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay, we'll call the meeting to order. Do we have any additions or deletions? MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold. No, there are no changes to the agenda. MR. FLEGAL: I have a question. CHAIRMAN PEASE: All right. MR. FLEGAL: Under Item 5-A, the rate-making, can we not do that in two sections? Because we're dealing with fuel surcharge, which is really separate from considering whether to recommend a fare increase, rather than link them together? I think they are two separate entities, and I think it should be discussed that way. The fuel surcharge was put on by the commissioners to be reviewed at "X" period of time. I think we should review it like we're supposed to and make our recommendation and then consider rates. Would that not be proper, Tom? MR. PALMER: Well, you can do it either way. The fact is that the fuel charge has been subsumed into the rate request, so in effect is being handled; it has been taken into account in the recommendation. So it could be done -- you could handle it separately or you could treat them together. They're intertwined in my mind because in fact the $2.00 surcharge has been factored into the recommendation, staff's recommendation. MR. FLEGAL: Right. But when the $2.00 surcharge was put on by the commissioners, it was for fuel charge, it wasn't to increase the rate. MR. PALMER: That's correct. MR. FLEGAL: It was to be -- my understanding of the minutes and the -- of the commission, it was to be reviewed to see whether that should remain, not whether you should increase the rates. MR. PALMER: Well, that's right. MR. FLEGAL: Okay? MR. PALMER: But if in fact if the rate request is going to be approved, it resolves the handling -- it would resolve this board's disposition of the surcharge, because it's factored into it. What it amounts to is that the board is not limiting the $2.00 increase to fuel cost, but in effect is saying some of it's fuel cost Page 2 November 7, 2000 and other of it in fact flows out to increase in general cost in the last eight years. So what it amounts to is finding that a $2.00 surcharge is not needed strictly to cover the increased cost of fuel, is the end result, or the recommendation. MS. ARNOLD: I think we can resolve the concern of Mr. Flegal by just taking two separate -- making two separate actions. MR. FLEGAL: I'd like to see that, because I think they are two distinct things. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. FLEGAL: The County Commissioners didn't approve a fare increase, which is what's being asked for us to consider; they approved a $2.00 surcharge for fuel only. I think we should either -- MS. ARNOLD: What we could do is -- MR. FLEGAL: -- agree to that or disagree with it, to recommend to them and then go say by the way, we do or we don't think there should be a fare increase, based on the following. MS. ARNOLD: Right. We could leave it as one item, but take two separate actions. Because I think when the presentation's made, both items are going to be discussed. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Also, that can be resolved in the form of a motion, too. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN PEASE: How the motion is worded would dictate whether or not the two items are linked or not. MR. FLEGAL: As long as they're separate. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Well, I can't assure you that every board member -- MR. FLEGAL: I understand. CHAIRMAN PEASE: -- feels that way. MR. FLEGAL: But I think they should talk about it separately, because I think they are very distinct. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Any other comments? Do we have an approval of the agenda? MR. FLEGAL: I make a motion we accept the agenda as submitted. MS. BAISLEY: I'll second that motion. Page 3 November 7, 2000 CHAIRMAN PEASE: All those in favor?. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: Motion carried. The approval of the minutes. Do we have a motion to accept those? MR. FLEGAL: I make a motion we accept the minutes as submitted. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Second? MR. HYDE: Second. CHAIRMAN PEASE: All those in favor, aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: Motion carried. No new business? We go to old business. MS. ARNOLD: Should we just do roll call really quickly? CHAIRMAN PEASE: Yes, we should do roll call, thank you. Can you put that on the agenda so I don't forget that next time? MS. CRUZ: Good morning. For the record, Maria Cruz. Patricia Baisley? MS. BAISLEY: Here. MS. CRUZ: Clifford Flegal? MR. FLEGAL: Here. MS. CRUZ: Bryan Pease? CHAIRMAN PEASE: Here. MS. CRUZ: William Csogi? MR. CSOGI: Here. MS. CRUZ: Eric Hyde? MR. HYDE: Here. MS. CRUZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay, old business. Rate-making, staff's recommendation. MR. FLEGAL: Why don't we do Mr. Cokorogianis first, because I've got a feeling rate-making may take a while. CHAIRMAN PEASE: here. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. CHAIRMAN PEASE: MR. WALLACE: Well, let's go with the order that's on Let's call on Bleu, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Page 4 November 7, 2000 Bleu Wallace. I'm the director of utility and franchise regulation. We have provided you again our -- the copy of the staff study that you first saw and was presented on August the 28th, 2000. The county manager insisted that the rate-making staff make a firm recommendation to this body regarding the $2.00 fuel surcharge and any other rate recommendation. We have done that. And there are two recommendations. The first is to discontinue the $2.00 fuel surcharge. We do that and take care of the fuel surcharge. The second recommendation is to roll that in and consider the $2.00 to be recouped at the average trip length for metered trips, which, based on the information provided by all the operators, or most of the operators, equated to 4.5 miles as the average metered trip length. And you can see the document that we provided all of the PVAC members shows -- the matrix shows the rates prior to the surcharge with the $2.00 fuel surcharge, and then the staff's proposed rate ceilings. We feel this will be a lot fairer, because it does not penalize that individual taking a short trip to a doctor's office or whatever. It also, when you consider the taxicab companies have not had an increase in so many years, in our original study, we did factor in there some of the price index percentages over the years, and we think that is due consideration also. So with that, the rate-making staff, we have coordinated this with the code enforcement staff, and it's both our recommendations that these proposed rate ceilings be adopted. I'd be happy to answer any questions, and at the end of the question/answer period, before your deliberations or after, I would ask that the committee make a motion to accept the staff's recommendation and the study as an exhibit. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Is there a motion to do that now? MR. FLEGAL: As far as the -- CHAIRMAN PEASE: Just to accept it as an exhibit. MR. FLEGAL: Yeah, the exhibit from -- the booklet that staff prepared, I'd make a motion that we accept that as an exhibit. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Well, what are you clarifying? Can you say that again? MR. FLEGAL: The booklet that staff prepared, we can accept that -- I make a motion we accept that as an exhibit. Page 5 November 7, 2000 CHAIRMAN PEASE: MR. HYDE: Second. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: Questions for Bleu? Okay. Do we have a second? All those in favor? Motion carried. MR. FLEGAL: Let's deal with the $2.00 surcharge. Your recommendation, Bleu, is to discontinue the $2.00 surcharge, period. MR. WALLACE: Yes, sir. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. Did you -- in discontinuing it, did you do any analysis that led to you discontinue it? The reason I'm asking these questions, Bleu, is what you -- you're recommending you discontinue it, but then you roll it over into a rate, and that kind of bothers me. So I want to know, you want to discontinue it. Why? Did you do any study? I mean, it's supposed to be for fuel, so I'm asking you -- MR. WALLACE: Well, understand that we didn't feel that continuance of a $2.00 surcharge, fuel surcharge, was appropriate, because there's no one out there that knows what's going to happen to the fuel costs. Also, we thought it was just -- a $2.00 tagged on the front end of the taxi rate was penalizing those individuals on short trips. And although the $2.00 seemed to be a pretty good magic number for the operators out there, they -- there were some -- there were some concerns. U.S.A. Taxi made a concern that the short trip length, they thought those people were being penalized for short trip lengths, to pay so much up front, and they were losing some fares because of it. We took this and looked at the whole thing. We do not think the fuel surcharge should stay in effect. But we do think that there should be an overall increase because of the time that's gone by that these operators have not received any increase. I don't want to tag the increase specifically to fuel. There are other costs that have gone up, too. And that's why we just put it all together. But our final recommendation does remove the fuel surcharge, and takes into consideration the increased fuel costs Page 6 November 7, 2000 and other operational costs in raising the rate ceilings to the $2.00 level for an average trip length. MS. ARNOLD: I believe, too, when the surcharge was approved, it was the thought of the Commission that most of the $2.00 was going to go to the drivers to recover the cost for fuel. But I think in our analysis we found that it was varied, depending on the company, how that distribution was made. You know, some of it went to -- most of it went to the drivers, some went half to the company and the drivers and those types of things as well. MR. WALLACE: Yes. If I may, some of the companies have a 60/40 split of fares. But the driver has to pay for the gasoline. So that meant that part of the surcharge -- well, if it's $2.00 and it's up front, then half of that surcharge was going to the company and half of it was going to the driver, and the driver was actually buying the gasoline. So we didn't think it was appropriate either. And that's another reason why we didn't want to leave the fuel surcharge in place. Because even though it may have been the intent that that whole $2.00 go toward the purchase of fuel, that was not what was happening, in most cases. MR. FLEGAL: Well, I'm not disagreeing with your recommendation. I like your recommendation to discontinue it, because I think that's what should be done, because I think it is unfair to the public. And since it was to be quote, unquote, for fuel, in reading the minutes of the Commission meeting, fuel didn't go up $2.00. That was my whole basis in the beginning when I objected to the way it was done. I took some of the information you provided us and tried to do analysis of the fuel, just fuel, using your AAA rates that were -- that you obtained for the last year. And fuel went up, with some information that was submitted by Yellow on a number of trips they made per day and your average length and everything. And fuel per day went up about $6.80. And yet, you know, that's -- they're collecting a whole lot more money than that. That's what kind of bothered me about the fuel surcharge. I have a real problem with rolling something in also when I don't see this kind of money being -- MR. WALLACE: I would have preferred to -- staff would have preferred to review the fuel surcharge prior to its Page 7 November 7, 2000 implementation, but we did not have that opportunity. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. Well, I like your recommendation to discontinue that, because I think it is excessive. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Any other questions for Bleu and his report? MR. FLEGAL: Now that I've passed the fuel surcharge, I have a couple of questions about your recommending an increase. Your recommendation is based on four things in your report. What information did you get from the companies, or individuals, whoever has a permit to operate as a metered service? MR. WALLACE: We received some data, but unfortunately, most of the data we received was not reliable enough. I'm talking about the second try here. Most of that was not reliable enough. And also, it was -- there no way to compare it. It was apples to oranges is what came in. And we really didn't have a lot to base that recommendation on. That's why we reverted back to our previous review and stuck with that 4.5 average metered trip. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. MR. WALLACE: And we also took into consideration consumer price index increases over the last eight or nine years. We factored that in, too, just as something to consider. MR. FLEGAL: You said before and your report says the same thing, basically what you're recommending is the increase be nothing more than taking the $2.00 that we just said should be lopped off and just adding it back in. MR. WALLACE: But I don't want to tag fuel surcharge to that $2.00. That's the main difference. MR. FLEGAL: What I'm trying to find out is in saying that we should raise quote, unquote, rates $2.00, based on what? What information did you get from the people who charge the public to justify going up this $2.007 MR. WALLACE: What we did was whenever we got the original analysis that we did the report in August, in there we had -- we could determine that the increase in overall metered revenue ranged anywhere from 20 to about I think 24 percent. We figured that -- we thought that that was reasonable for a period of eight years. Whenever we saw it going up from what it is now, rolling in the $2.00 to average metered trip, the rates Page 8 Nouember 7, 2000 would actually increase around 20 percent, 20 or 24 percent. We thought when you add up all those years and add up CPI for all those years, that would come pretty close and reasonable. I don't think there's anything magic about the $2.00, but it's somewhat reasonable too when you consider the percentage of the increase in overall metered revenues. Now, these metered revenues were not based on average trip lengths. They were the actual trip lengths for that period of time that we tested and that we received trip logs from all the -- or most of the operators. MS. ARNOLD: I believe what staff tried to do is come up with a method or a formula for trying to determine what would be a fair increase, base -- and using -- utilizing some of the trip log data that they received initially in August. But we did have limited information that came in from that second request. MR. FLEGAL: Well, the reason I'm asking what staff based this on is one of the requirements of the ordinance is consider, you know, any information and all information financially on operating reports that were submitted. And that's why I understand what you got wasn't very much, which leads me to believe that almost -- that there's not a lot of interest in increasing these rates, because nobody wants to give you information. Plus in us considering your data to recommend something else, we're supposed to be able to consider all kinds of things, you know, driver cost, salaries, you know, insurance, taxes, and all this administration. It's all information that's available. There's nothing secret about it. I disagree with the assistant county attorney that it's some kind of confidential information. That's hogwash. I don't want to know who you buy things from or what your overhead rate is. I'm not interested in that. But when you're asking the public to start paying more money, just saying gee, I haven't had a raise in 10 years doesn't cut it -- I mean justify it, I think. That could mean that you've been getting too much money for the last 10 years. I don't know. You need to tell me why you need more money. And they obviously don't want to tell you, and you're trying to do the best you can by looking at some other factors, and I appreciate that. That's why I'm trying to find out as much as I can to make any kind of decision whether I would recommend any rate Page 9 November 7, 2000 increases or not. I think if you want more money, you should justify it. MR. WALLACE: I would state that I think the operators do need some kind of rate relief. And I am also concerned that should they not get any rate relief and the $2.00 surcharge be discontinued, I have a feeling you're going to end up with no metered taxis in town and everybody will go to chartered rate. That was my fear. And I thought that we needed to provide some rate relief for these operators. MS. BAISLEY: Did you receive information from some of the operators concerning other operating costs besides fuel? MR. WALLACE: Yes. And there seemed to be some increases. Of course these were unaudited numbers, and they were ranging from different periods of time. We only received, I think the numbers that we requested, to include the revenue numbers and the expense numbers from only a couple of companies. That made it very difficult for staff to make any -- for the data we received to have any meaning. MR. HYDE: Bleu, did we get a competitive survey from either Fort Myers or Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, in regards to other rates that would be out there, competitive rates survey? I saw that somewhere. MR. WALLACE: Well, there are some. I think that was provided. I think it's in the report somewhere. Or was it handed out separately? CHAIRMAN PEASE: It was handed out separately. MR. HYDE: Yeah, because I was looking for that. MR. WALLACE: Keep in mind that the rates for fuel in Fort Myers, they're less than they are in Collier County. MR. HYDE: Cost of living is different too, so -- CHAIRMAN PEASE: Any other questions for Bleu? Thank you, Bleu. If you could stay by -- I know you have another meeting to go to, but if you could stay by a little bit as long as you can, in case something does come up. We do have a request for public comment. And we did have a public meeting on this previously, and several that have asked to talk have exercised that right. However, we will open it up to public comment. I'd like to encourage those that have already spoke to have something new for us, and also, if we could limit it to three Page 10 November 7, 2000 minutes, given that we've had ample time previously for those people to speak. First up is Jack Bridenthal. MR. BRIDENTHAL: I don't really have anything. CHAIRMAN PEASE: You're okay? Okay. Russ Baisley. MR. BAISLEY: Actually, there's two requests to speak in there, Bryan. One's on new business. Relative to the rates, there were additional numbers that were submitted. There is comparatives that were submitted to the county. The current meter rate for Fort Myers is 3.05 is the initial draft. Also, there are -- in addition to the 3.05 and a $1.50 a mile, there are additional charges of $1.00 per person, and those kinds of things that are in that rate structure. So that the three -- our rate is cheaper right now than the rate in Fort Myers. In addition to that, I think that Bleu was right on point that without rate relief -- the cabs in Marco Island, none of them are metered cabs, they're all chartered vehicles. It's not -- I don't think it's a professional way to treat the public. I think a hotel guest or whatever deserves the protection of a taxi meter to see what the charge is going to be. But the reality is, if there's not a relief in some fashion, I think that's what will happen. Thank you. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Make a motion we close the public comment? MR. FLEGAL: I make that motion. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Is there a second? MR. HYDE: Second. CHAIRMAN PEASE: All those in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: Motion carried. Now what we'll do is we'll open it up for discussion of the committee, and then we'll look for a motion, and then we'll have further discussion on the motion. MR. HYDE: Where did this come from? MR. FLEGAL: Me. CHAIRMAN PEASE: MR. FLEGAL: Sure. CHAIRMAN PEASE: go ahead. Do you want to talk about it? I know you filibustered a lot already, but Page 11 November 7, 2000 MR. FLEGAL: The $2.00 surcharge, I voiced my opinion months ago when it came about that I didn't like it. I thought it was unfair. Some of the information that was submitted to us by the firms was submitted to staff, which got submitted to us. Since it was for fuel, quote, unquote, only when it was put on, I took that information and I tried to figure out, okay, we're charging $2.00 a trip because of fuel. The price went up. Let's just figure out how this works. One of the firms said they make 300 trips a day. So let's say 300 trips a day and you're getting $2.00 for each trip, they're picking up $600. The average trip length, according to the staff going through tickets of various firms, was 4.5 miles. That's one way, of course, so let's double that, because they have to get back to wherever. So it's a nine-mile trip. So if we make a nine-mile trip and we're making 300 trips a day, that's 2,700 miles a day we're driving. The average mileage on a cab, according to our assistant county attorney, which you put in the ordinance, is 12 miles to the gallon. If I'm doing 2,700 miles a day at 12 miles to the gallon, that's going to cost me 225 gallons of gas, okay, so far. If I take staff's report from the American Automobile Association of fuel costs, over the last year -- I think I did it from March of '99 to March of 2000, when the surcharge went into existence -- there's an extra 66 and a half cent increase in fuel cost during that year. Now, we just said we had to get 225 gallons of gas a day, so if I multiply that times the extra gas costs, that's right under $150 a day for fuel. $150 a day. But wait a minute, we collected $600 a day. Kind of a big disparity there of an extra $450. If you work it out further, you could take the cost per day by the miles, and it's really only costing a little over five and a half cents a mile for extra gas. You could take it times the number of cabs in one particular operation, that's only $6.80 a day for that cab. And I kept trying to work it out, because I'm trying to justify this in my own mind. But the further I worked, the worse it got. If I collected the $600 a day and divided that by the 2,700 miles we're traveling a day, that means we're collecting a little over 22 cents a mile. We're collecting a little over 22 cents a mile; we're actually paying a little over five and a half cents a mile. Again, Page 12 November 7, 2000 that means we're overcharging a little over 16 cents a mile. Work it by that mileage factor, this over 16 cents a mile times 2,700 miles a day, you come back to the over $450 a day that we're collecting that we don't really need for fuel. Now, this surcharge has been in effect -- let's say it were to get knocked off at the next commission meeting, which is I think in a week or two, that works out to about 236 days. That 400 -- it's actually $450, not 456. Works out to over $106,000 that's not for fuel. That was my original objection to this in the first place. I'm not objecting to giving these fellows money to pay for the extra fuel cost, but it's not two bucks. I'm sorry. Granted, prices went up, they deserve a little something because prices went up, but this wasn't it, so -- CHAIRMAN PEASE: Do you want to make a motion to enter this into the record? MR. FLEGAL: If you'd like it into the record, I'll make a motion it be entered in the record. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I'm not saying I do, I'm just asking, do you want that opportunity? MR. FLEGAL: I don't care. It's part of my discussion with the committee that for the fuel surcharge bit of it, I think it should be halted immediately. I think it is a very big burden unnecessarily on the public. MR. HYDE: I'd like to make a motion that it gets entered into the record for several reasons. A, it gives credence to what the gentleman's talking about, and B, it gives the calculations as a basis for some of his assumptions. I think that the County Commissioners need to be able to see that. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Is there a second? MS. BAISLEY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN PEASE: All those in favor, aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: Motion carried. Any other discussion? MR. HYDE: I agree with the analysis of removing the fuel surcharge. I think that we -- and I'll speak for myself, but I think most of us kind of have the same feeling, that it may have been a quick fix to a solution rather than having the operators come in Page 13 November 7, 2000 and say hey, we would like to get a rate adjustment and a feeling as to what we can do, because we haven't had an increase in eight years. The surcharge was simply a quick fix on their behalf, one way or the other. And I think that not necessarily with good intentions, but they were trying to recoup some of the costs, as there haven't been (sic) a rate increase in years. The -- and if you look at what they're doing in Fort Myers and in other towns, obviously in Miami, Tampa, Fort Lauderdale, Orlando, you've got a disparity obviously in the amount of people and the amount of trips that take place. Where Collier is smaller, I don't think we carry the volume, nor do we have the number of cabs that are probably in these areas. And to lose the actual taxis or the metered rate structure would not be doing the populous justice. So therefore, I agree that the surcharge should be dropped. However, I think there should be a rate adjustment in order to level out some of the eight-year differences. When you purchased a vehicle eight years ago, there is no doubt in my mind that you didn't pay the prices that you're paying now for a taxi. Number two, the allocation of oil and all the other, tires and everything else that goes with it, not --just add on what the actual real estate values have changed in Naples now versus eight years ago. So if a person wants to come in and wants to operate a taxi company, it's almost at a deficit because they can't get commercial real estate in order to provide the service. So I think that's another thing that needs to be looked at. And obviously we're trying to do business in this town, versus eliminate it. And I think that we need to really take a look at the operators and hopefully they've got some challenges with some financial things, there's some accounting processes that are there, and I think that they could have worked a little bit closer with us. But I think that we need to be able to make a decision that would be fair, not only for just the sake of saying okay, we're going to make a change, but to do it which is in the best interest of the community, because those are the people that we're supposed to represent and to safeguard. MR. FLEGAL: I agree with the analogy. My problem has been getting information from these firms. If I follow what I just Page 14 November 7, 2000 have done on the fuel costs, I see fuel only going up a little over five and a half cents. So staff's recommending a $2.00 increase. So far I've only justified five and a half cents of it. I do not believe all these other costs justify $1.95. I'm sorry, I don't see those costs. MS. BAISLEY: What do you think it should be? MR. FLEGAL: It should be something else. I don't believe it should be $2.00. What I would like to see is information from these firms to prove that it should be anything. I'm trying to help them. I've justified their fuel cost, now why won't they help us by justifying something else? It seems they don't want to do that for some reason. They just want to say they need the money. I guess if we all walked in to our bosses and said gee, prices went up and I want a $2,000 a month raise, he's not going to give it to you. I don't think we should recommend it until we know why. Do they deserve it? Yes, they probably deserve something. They should be willing to help us decide what that is. They seem very unwilling to do that, other than stand up and say we want the money. That doesn't get it for me. I'm sorry. You know, help me. Tell me why you need the money. Did real estate costs go up? Possibly. Did your business grow so you need more real estate to park, so and so? Possibly. Why won't you tell me what you need? Did insurance costs go up? Maybe. Looking at some information that was submitted, I didn't see it going up that much. Did costs of parts go up? Probably. I mean, I'm making a lot of assumptions, but nobody wants to give me information to justify those assumptions. Why do I have to justify their rate increases? MS. BAISLEY: Some of those firms did submit additional information to the county on other operating costs that were involved in their businesses, not just the fuel surcharge. When this was given to Bleu Wallace's department, he was asked to prepare something on the fuel surcharge, so I don't think that those other things were really looked at at that time. MR. CSOGI: And I think it's pointless that -- if I remember correctly, it was less than 25 percent of the cab companies actually gave useful information. MR. FLEGAL: How much actual permitted operations are Page 15 November 7, 2000 there in the county? I remember at the last meeting there was a big concern about some weren't corporations. You don't have to be a corporation to be a taxi firm. MS. ARNOLD: Seven is what we have. MR. FLEGAL: There are actually seven permitted firms. MS. ARNOLD: Taxicab companies. MR. FLEGAL: Okay, that's all we're talking about. Metered firms, maybe I should use that so everybody gets on the same page. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Well, I'll weigh in. MR. FLEGAL: Do it. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I have to get past the emotion. And I think I'm asking everyone to get past the emotion. The emotion is that some people did it the wrong way. There's no doubt about that. You have to get past the emotion that the County Commissioners might have done something without our recommendation. So then once you get past the emotion, the emotion of them not supplying all the information you think you need, then it comes down to logic. And the logic is that even though they did it the wrong way, and even though they had eight years to come forward and request this and never did, until it looked like the surcharge might go away, that prices have went up. Costs have went up. The charter companies -- as a charter company, I can assure you that costs went up in several segments. So I like the recommendation that Bleu gave. I think it's appropriate, and I think it solves an issue that I -- my biggest concern which for the general public, which was getting nailed on the front end. That was my problem with the surcharge. I did not think it was fair for the little old lady to have to pay to go to the doctor or the grocery store a higher rate than maybe somebody that was doing it for leisure purposes. And so I like the recommendation. I like what Bleu came up with. I also think that -- and I know this is really strange, because I'm actually wanting to do something which eliminates a problem, and here I am condemning the taxi company for not coming forward, and now I'm also recommending or suggesting that we consider a built-in cost of living increase. Not annually, because I think to change the meters every year would pose a Page 16 November 7, 2000 problem. And this is not saying that any company has to do it, because they can leave the rates the way they are. But I'm suggesting that maybe every two years there's a built-in CPI index or some index used for that purpose. So that's my opinion. MR. FLEGAL: Interesting opinion. I like your analogy that we didn't want to charge the people $2.00 because they were going from the store and they had no other way -- but what we've done is turned around, instead of taking the $2.00 off the front end, we've just folded it into the rate, period. And we really haven't -- nobody's justified the $2.00. That's what I can't seem to get anybody to look at. Everybody wants to just say they need the money. That's why I have the problem. They need some money, I agree. I don't think it's $2.00, personally. But if they can justify that it's $2.00, I'd probably go along with it. But they're not even willing to do that. We're making this assumption, and that's where I have the problem. You haven't really done anything for the public other than take it off the front end and just fold it into the rate, period. You didn't help the public. The $2.00 is still there. So they're still getting nailed. We didn't justify the $2.00. That's where I have the problem. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I understand your concern. MR. FLEGAL: They need something. I just don't know what that something is because they won't help me. CHAIRMAN PEASE: And it's a legitimate statement. It's a legitimate statement. Any other discussion? MS. BAISLEY: And what I said before is some of the operators did submit things concerning other costs in their business. Increases in insurance, increases in labor costs, increases in parts and vehicle purchases. CHAIRMAN PEASE: But not on a spreadsheet type format where you could -- in the same format that he's laid out. MS. BAISLEY.' But he wasn't requested to -- CHAIRMAN PEASE: I know. MS. BAISLEY: -- obtain that information. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I agree. MR. FLEGAL: Well, I don't know, I guess I look to Mr. Palmer and I say when I read the ordinance, it says what you're supposed to consider if you're going to consider any rate Page 17 November 7, 2000 increases. And pretty much the biggest thing I've seen submitted to us in the staff's report is the CPI went up and over the last years we're using the CPI. I mean, I'm way under impressed with that. MR. PALMER: Well, the thing about it is you have not been given all the material that staff analyzed to come up with this. The most definitive information they got in basically spreadsheet format showed that the cost in the last eight years for the most definitive data went up 2:3 percent from eight years ago. And Bleu was just saying that if you divide that by eight, it basically -- it almost equates to the CPI, which is kind of like an honesty check. But you don't have all the information there is, quite detailed information, about line item costs: Insurance, rent, employee, health insurance, and all the other incidentals; maintenance, repairs of vehicles. And in totality, it comes up with the most definitive and the largest companies that responded as a 23 percent increase. And I think the assumption is that if it applies that way for the big company, in all likelihood it applies that way for the little guy, too. And with an honesty check, divided by the CPI, the two almost equate. So it seems intuitively that these are, based on that data and cross-check with the CPI, that these are right in the ballpark. You don't need mathematical certitude for rate design, but it looks like these are very much in the middle of the road suggestion to the board, based upon the most definitive data we have. And he didn't burden you with quite a lot of detailed information we received from companies about line item specific cost increases over the years. We do have that backup material, just didn't supply it to you in voluminous, because it's quite detailed and quite voluminous. Although you're willing to see it. But these things were not just pulled out of the air. And Bleu ascertained that on average, the actual increase is 23 percent in the last eight years. MR. FLEGAL: Okay, let's take your 23 percent over the last eight years. You can't convince me that the CPI went up 23 percent every year during the last eight years. MR. PALMER: No, it went up three percent. Page 18 November 7, 2000 MR. FLEGAL: Okay. But you just said and he said, it's in the record, that the increase was 23 percent. And when you apply that over the last three years. Now, if I take -- CHAIRMAN PEASE: No, over-- MS. BAISLEY: Eight years. CHAIRMAN PEASE: -- the last eight years. MR. FLEGAL: Over the last eight years. MR. PALMER: Eight years. MR. FLEGAL: So if we take the current rate, which is what -- MR. PALMER: You take three times eight, it's 24, which is one percent of the increase. The CPI multiplied, not cumulatively, for eight years equates to one percent of the actual figures of a rate increase over the last eight years. That's what Bleu's testimony is. And it's in here on the taxi fare analysis. MR. FLEGAL: Okay, the current rate is a buck and a half, correct? Forget the fuel surcharge, because we're trying to build back up that. It's $1.757 Okay. Now, what's 23 percent of that? CHAIRMAN PEASE: He shouldn't be on the record. MR. FLEGAL: You're not talking to us, sir, thank you. I mean, I'm trying to get your 23 percent over the last eight years, so if it's $1.75 and if I take 23 percent of that, you know, it's what, 30 -- I don't know, not quite 40 cents. Ballpark it at 40 cents. MR. PALMER: It's explained and it's -- it's multiplied by the trip mileage. Comes out -- CHAIRMAN PEASE: What tab is that? MR. FLEGAL: What I'm trying to do is we want to increase the rate. MR. PALMER: Yes, and what we're saying is -- MR. FLEGAL: If it's $1.75, I don't want it to be 3.75 just because it should go up $2.00. MR. PALMER: The analysis that I'm discussing is in the last paragraph of the first page of what's called Staff's Analysis and Summary of Taxi Trips, and it's under Tab 4. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Tab 4. MR. FLEGAL: I still can't get a 23 percent increase to come out to $2.00. CHAIRMAN PEASE: That's because you're only looking at fuel. Page 19 November 7, 2000 MR. FLEGAL: No, forget the fuel. Bleu said we're going to take the rate up. Staff's recommendation is fold the $2.00 back into the rate. Forget fuel. Fuel's gone. He's asking for a $2.00 rate increase over 4.5 miles. Okay? CHAIRMAN PEASE: Bleu, do you have a comment? MR. WALLACE: Sir, you'll have to open things up. CHAIRMAN PEASE: For you? MS. ARNOLD: No, not for staff. MR. FLEGAL: No, you're staff. You can just come up here and talk to us. MR. WALLACE: What I said was earlier -- for the record, Bleu Wallace. What I said was earlier that based on the metered fares only -- we backed out the non-metered fares out of this analysis. On the metered fares only, the increase in revenue -- didn't talk about expenses -- the increase in revenue went up somewhere between 21 and 24 percent since the original -- from the original fare of 1.75 -- $1.75 up front, and then with the fuel surcharge thrown in. And we were looking at the increase in revenue to figure out what would be a fair and reasonable increase in considering that time span where there were no increases. The only thing that I'm saying is that over that period of time -- this is not an exact science and there's no established methodology for the establishment of taxi rates. Staff looked at that and we said we think this is fair and reasonable. Three percent a year increase, I don't think that's outrageous for the last eight years. And staff believes that this recommendation represents middle of the road fair and reasonable compensation to the operators, and it is fair -- fairer than -- our recommendation is fairer to the short trip customers. It doesn't have the burden that the $2.00 surcharge up front carries. And we think that the overall increase in revenue on metered taxi fares of 21 to 24 percent is not unreasonable. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. I'm not disagreeing with you. MR. WALLACE: Okay? MR. FLEGAL: What I'm saying is if I take the numbers, what I'm trying to do -- I'll take your 23 percent and right now forget the fuel service charge, because that's an extra. Let's take current rates. We're trying to figure out how to increase current rates. Current rate is $1.75 for the first tenth of a mile, okay? So Page 20 November 7, 2000 if we have a 23 percent overall increase in their cost, 23 percent of that is about 40 cents. MS. BAISLEY: You've got to add the 23 percent on to each mile thereafter. MR. FLEGAL'. I haven't got that far, I've just done the first tenth, okay? So then we go -- they're getting 30 cents for each two-tenths after that, correct? MR. WALLACE: Staff was not looking at the components, we were looking at the -- MR. FLEGAL: Okay. I'mjust-- MR. WALLACE: -- overall revenues generated. MR. FLEGAL: -- trying to justify 23 percent, the staff is, and I'm trying to figure out -- THE COURT REPORTER: Please restate your response. MR. FLEGAL: I'm just trying to justify. You're saying a 23 percent increase, and I'm trying to live with that in my mind and get the rate to work. Okay? So I've done it on the $1.75. I'm taking that up 40 cents, because that's 23 percent. Now I've got to go to the other two-tenths, to 30 cents for two-tenths of a mile. 23 percent of that is about seven cents, okay? So then you have two, four, six, eight, so there's four of those. That's 28 cents, and the 40 cents in the beginning. I'm at 68 cents versus your $2.00. I'm not having a hard time with this other than I'm trying to live with your 23 percent. MS. BAISLEY: I think part of the problem here is if the companies would come here every year and ask for three percent, it wouldn't seem like so much. But because they haven't been here in eight years, and now we're talking about 23 percent, it seems like you have such a huge increase. MR. FLEGAL: But I can live with the 23 percent. I just can't get it to meet $2.00. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Mr. Flegal, give me those numbers again. On -- what would the first tenth be on your calculation? MR. FLEGAL: It's $1.75. If you take 23 percent of that, that comes out 40 cents. MS. ARNOLD: 2.15. CHAIRMAN PEASE: So 2.15. Okay, and then each additional Page 21 November 7, 2000 would be what? MR. FLEGAL: 30 cents. 23 percent of that is seven cents. CHAIRMAN PEASE: So 37 cents, is that what we're talking about? MR. FLEGAL: That's 37 cents for the three-tenths after that -- or two-tenths. Each two-tenth. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I hear what you're saying. You're looking at 2.15 and 37, versus staff's recommendation of 2.65 and 35. MR. FLEGAL: Yeah. I mean, I'm using their 23 percent. I'll accept what Bleu is saying on that basis. I just can't get to the same numbers, and I'm -- since this is all I have, I'm trying to justify it in my mind. And I can accept 23, based on their saying that they have all this data behind them. MR. WALLACE: Let me add for the record that the 23 percent increase is on their metered revenues of the snapshot that we took from all of the companies, based on the trip mileage. MR. FLEGAL: Right. MR. WALLACE: That has nothing to do with their expenses, whether they were lower, higher, whatever. That was just a separate snapshot we took and a calculation we made, and we ended up with that 20 some odd percent. And it varied by taxi company. And that's in that report. MR. FLEGAL: Right. MR. WALLACE: If you selected a rate, what you want it to be, just for a test, we can put it on a sliding scale and tell you what that will generate. MR. FLEGAL: Well, I understand that the fellow that owns one cab isn't going to make near the money of the group that owns 20 or more cabs or something like -- I mean, that math is real easy. And the operating costs are way different, too. One guy may operate out of his house, somebody else now has a big commercial building they're paying for. I understand all that. MR. WALLACE: And of course we did not look at expenses here at all. We looked at -- whenever we're talking about the 23 percent was increase in revenues. And that is what the $2.00 surcharge did for that particular company. So that's where I'm coming from on that. Page 22 November 7, 2000 Staff would be happy to make any analysis or do any calculation you'd like regarding these rates, and I'll -- I have to be somewhere else, though. MR. FLEGAL: We understand that, Bleu. I'm just -- I'm still -- I'm trying to come up with a number that I think these gentlemen should -- you know, if they deserve something, it should be based on something. The county attorney says you have all this data that was submitted and you come up with this report. I don't have a problem with that. We're talking this 23 percent. So I'm trying to figure out how does that factor in to get me to something -- the $2.00 just, you know, you still really haven't told me why it should be $2.00, okay? You're saying well, there's other costs, there's other this, there's other -- whatever. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Would staff like a 10-minute recess -- MR. FLEGAL: I'm only one out of five, so -- CHAIRMAN PEASE: -- to -- looks like you're working on something over there. Would you like a 10-minute recess to reconvene? MR. NOHL: For the record, my name is Tom Nohl. I'm a senior fiscal analyst for the Utility and Franchise Regulation Department. Rate ceilings were mentioned here, I believe, of 2.15 and 37 cents. And I just wanted to run a calculation using the 4.5 average trip milage to see what kind of fare that would generate, given that. And that's what I was looking at initially. And if it's comparable to what we have proposed, that's another revenue neutral situation that we could address. But I just wanted to apply the rates that were -- or the rate that was suggested here and see what that comes up with at the 4.5 average trip mileage. MS. BAISLEY: Could we give him a few minute to do that? CHAIRMAN PEASE: Let's take five. We'll make it an even -- I have five till 10:00. I don't know why, but I have five till 10:00. We'll go five minutes in recess. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: I call the meeting to order. We'll -- does staff have a comment? MR. NOHL'- Again, my name is Thomas Nohl, for the record. I am a senior fiscal analyst with the Utility and Franchise Regulation Department. Page 23 November 7, 2000 I looked at the suggested -- the rate ceilings of 2.15 for the first tenth of a mile and 37 cents for the two-tenths of a mile thereafter. And I just applied that, given the 4.5 percent -- or 4.5 average trip mileage, and it came up with a fare of $10.29, which is right in the ballpark of what we came up with of 10.35. So again, this is not an exact science, but it shows that you can have different rate ceilings, based on what you feel is fair, but using the 4. -- or four and a half average trip mileage, we're coming up with comparable fares. I just wanted to point that out. So-- MR. FLEGAL: And that's good. I don't have a problem with it. I just -- I'm trying to justify the 23 percent to see if I accept the staff's way of doing it. You've given me this number, so I'm trying to apply it. Gee, it does come close, so I don't have a problem. MR. NOHL: If you look at, for example, the 4.5 average trip mileage and you're using the 2.15/37 cents, if the trip mileage is beyond 4.5, the cab companies would be better off with that rate than one that has a 35 cent component. Because we're basically talking where those rates intersect as far as trip fares. So it depends upon what you feel is fair and reasonable. MR. FLEGAL: What I'm -- what I want us to be apprised of is these real short trips where again what my -- in fact, some months ago with whether it's the little old lady, little old man that has no way to get around but a taxi. I don't like things front-end loaded, because they're going to get hurt the worst. Somebody that's visiting, they could care less about the money anyway, but a person that's housebound and needs this service, I don't want them paying the brunt of the money in Collier County to the taxi companies. I think it needs to be fair to them. Because that's the only way they have to get around. That's one of my concerns in trying to -- if we're going to increase it, let's be fair to the public. Get the firms the money they feel they need, but not all in the front end. I don't know, I don't know the breakout of short-term, you know, two-mile trips versus eight-mile trips without having somebody go through and review a bunch of records. But that's where I'm coming from. I don't want it all front-end loaded, because the little old lady gets hurt the worst. MS. BAISLEY: So you're saying a difference of the 2.15 Page 24 November 7, 2000 versus the 2.65? MR. FLEGAL: If I take their 23 percent and accept it, which I'm not at this point arguing about it over an eight-year period. You know, that's the CPI. That's not a big blast. That's something less than three percent, which is probably within reason. MS. BAISLEY: So it's a 50 cent difference to the person who takes the short trip. MR. FLEGAL: Right. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Any other questions for Tom before we let him go? Tom, do you have any other comment? MR. NOHL: I think I said it all. CHAIRMAN PEASE= Okay. MR. FLEGAL= Thank you. CHAIRMAN PEASE: We've had quite a bit of discussion. Does anybody have any final discussion before we ask -- the Chair asks for a motion? MR. HYDE: Yeah, one quick comment. Has staff received any complaints or any phone calls whatsoever from the public in regards to the fare structure with the $2.00 for the deviation? Anything at all that we know of? MS. ARNOLD: No, we've not received any complaints. I think at a prior meeting we discussed informing the public a little bit more as to who to call. Because we have had meetings with, say, the airport. And they receive complaints, not necessarily because of the fare structure but, you know, they're the ones that are receiving some of the calls that maybe we should be receiving with respect to the cab companies. So we're working with the airports and other places like that where cabs generally get picked up to inform the public a little bit better as to who should be receiving some of the complaints. MR. FLEGAL: Have you received any complaints that cabs weren't responding to -- MS. ARNOLD: No, we -- MR. FLEGAL: -- requests for service? MS. ARNOLD: -- have not. No. MR. CSOGI: Have we installed any vehicle, per se, that people could know, if you get in a taxicab you can call this number for a compliant? Is there a sticker, is there an 800 Page 25 November 7, 2000 number? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, we're looking into developing a sticker that we could issue with the -- MR. CSOGI: Decal. MS. ARNOLD: -- decals so that they are placed in the cab so that the public is informed of who could call. MR. CSOGI: But to date there's nothing. MS. ARNOLD: No, there is not. MR. CSOGI: So theoretically if you got in the cab and you had a complaint, you'd have to look in the blue pages and try to figure out who to call. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. MR. CSOGI: So really, even though you've gotten on, there's no vehicle number. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Any other discussion? Do we have a motion? MR. HYDE: I'll make a motion that we -- first of all, on the surcharge, that we eliminate the surcharge. Number two, I make a motion that we increase the rate to the 2.15 and the 37 cents, which is, I believe, that 20 some odd percent increase that Tom had mentioned. And additionally, I think we also need to have some kind of internal mechanism for the public, whether it's a sticker or whether it's a phone number, that needs to be displayed on the inside of a vehicle, whether it's on the glass or on the heading or whatever, so that the public can actually respond. And I think if you did all three of those, we get rid of the surcharge, because we find that that's really not applicable with the cost of doing business now; we bring the fares back up so that we hit that 23 percent or 24 percent issue; and we also give the public an opportunity to come back to us and say this works or this doesn't work or someone didn't pick us up or -- but it gives them a method to be able to respond back to the county. And I think that with -- in doing that, hopefully this will also aid the cab companies to go out and then whether it's annually or bi-annually, take a look at what their rate structures are. And if there are specific increases, that they come back to the advisory board and make recommendations based on concrete data so that we can address it. Page 26 November 7, 2000 CHAIRMAN PEASE: Do we have a second to eliminate the surcharge -- the fuel surcharge, increase the fare rate to $2.15 for the first tenth of a mile, and 37 cents thereafter, as well as require taxi operators to place information via a sticker in the public area of the cab for complaints? MR. CSOGI: I'll second it with an addition, that the taxicabs are leased, and I don't want the taxicabs being unfairly called on complaints, whether it might be a driver in a vehicle and a different time it might be a different driver. As long as that vehicle, they put the name near the phone number of who's driving that vehicle. CHAIRMAN PEASE: The vehicle number? MR. CSOGI: No, the driver name. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Driver name. MR. CSOGI: Because it might have different drivers, I would assume. So that the burden is not on the taxicab company, it's on the driver. If they're getting complaints, maybe it's a bad driver and they can prove it by giving the driver's name, and maybe the complaints go away. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Does the person that made the motion want to amend his motion to include that? MR. HYDE: That probably makes sense. I've seen the stickers on the back of cars that say, "How's my driving?" What we're looking for is specifically complaints on the operator of that vehicle at that time, more so than -- so the answer would be yes. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Do we have a discussion on the motion? MR. FLEGAL: No. I guess my only discussion would be is a question to Tom. Does the county not have currently -- when you get in a metered vehicle, is there anything, like in other cities they have their license and their picture and their name and all that so you know who this person is driving up there, do we do this in this county? MR. PALMER: Frankly, I don't know. Maria might be able to answer that question. MS. CRUZ: No, sir, we don't. MR. FLEGAL: We don't do that. Okay, that's something I think rather than put it in this motion we need to do separately. MR. PALMER: Apparently something was said, and I didn't hear it, but somebody informed me that there's apparently a little Page 27 November 7, 2000 bit of a glitch, because these meters only come up in five cent increments. So apparently you might have said something that talked about something other than a five cent increment. So whatever -- it has to be understood that as this meter clicks, it always clicks at five cents and five cents. MR. CSOGI: Round off, okay. MR. PALMER: So that's the only way we could -- so the motion would have to be amended to take into account that fact. MR. HYDE: Okay. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Does the person making the motion -- do we want to rescind the entire motion and -- MR. HYDE: How about if we start over? CHAIRMAN PEASE: Yeah, let's do. Because you may want to ww MR. HYDE: I need to write this down. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I'll write it down for you. I've got it. MR. FLEGAL: 2.15 to 35. MR. HYDE: Right. MR. FLEGAL: I don't think two cents is going to break them. MR. HYDE: Okay, the first one would be A, to rescind the fuel surcharge. To increase the fare to 2.15 and to 2.35 -- excuse me, to 35 cents for each additional, which gives you that five cent margin. And also, to require -- and leave it at that. CHAIRMAN PEASE: That's the end of your motion? MR. HYDE: That's the end of the motion for now. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Do we have a second? MR. CSOGI: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Discussion on the motion? No discussion? MS. BAISLEY: I still think you're going to have a lot of taxicabs that are going to disappear and you're going to have charter services that are charging whatever they want to do. I want that to be on the record so that when these people start doing this and the complaints start coming in to the county, it's on the record. MR. FLEGAL: Well, then they should justify it. I think we're being more than fair by taking it up 23 percent. CHAIRMAN PEASE: You're not open to public comments, sir. My only comment is that is we've taken the two cents off the per mile -- Page 28 November 7, 2000 MR. CSOGI: $2.00. CHAIRMAN PEASE: On the -- MR. CSOGI: Per mile. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Per mile, we're taking two cents off. But we haven't increased the front end any to compensate for that two cents a mile, which on four and a half miles is another what, nine cents, 10 cents? So that's my only comment is to look at maybe 2.25 and 35 cents a mile. That's if I'm not -- we're not going to win with that 2.65, which is where I started this morning. MR. FLEGAL: Yeah, it seems that no matter what we do, the taxi industry isn't going to be happy till they get their $2.00 back, which, you know, that's tough, you can't win everything. You're getting something. They seem to want to do it all in one full swoop. They sat on their butts for eight years. That's their fault. We're trying to help them right now. If they want to come back later and they can justify it, I think they should. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Is there a consensus to have a built-in CPI? MR. FLEGAL: No, I would be against that. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I'm just striking out everywhere today. MR. FLEGAL: And you may by lunch. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Any other discussion? Okay, if we could, I'd like to have a roll call vote on this so I can determine ayes and nays. We'll start with Patricia Baisley. MS. BAISLEY: Opposed. vote CHAIRMAN PEASE: MR. FLEGAL: Yes. CHAIRMAN PEASE: MR. CSOGI: Csogi. CHAIRMAN PEASE: MR. HYDE: For. CHAIRMAN PEASE: nay on that. Clifford Flegal? William Csogi? I'm for. And my good friend to the right. This is scary. Tie-breaker. I'm going to MR. FLEGAL: It passes. That's two to three. There's only five of us. There were three yeses. It's a done deal. CHAIRMAN PEASE: The three yeses, I'm sorry, were? MR. FLEGAL: Mr. Csogi, Eric Hyde. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Yes, it does. I apologize. Three to two, Page 29 November 7, 2000 motion carried. MS. ARNOLD: And the motion was 2.15 and -- CHAIRMAN PEASE: Eliminate the fuel surcharge, increase to $2.15 on the first tenth and 35 cents each additional. MS. BAISLEY: And that has to go to the Board of County Commissioners to -- CHAIRMAN PEASE: Correct. MR. FLEGAL: Yeah. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Correct. That's all we're going to recommend. Is that done by a letter from me, by staff, written by staff, or how is that done? MR. PALMER: I think the proper way to do that would be to have staff prepare an executive summary explaining that that was the decision of this board, with a recommendation to, if they approve it, to direct staff to come back with an ordinance that accomplishes this result. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I can work with staff on that? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, we'll be doing that. We've written -- or we've written to Tom Olliff what our findings were that were presented to you today, and we'll follow it up with an executive summary to the board. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Should I call you then on -- MS. ARNOLD: Sure. MR. CSOGI: Mr. Pease, did you also want to put in that executive summary the second motion that Mr. Hyde had? CHAIRMAN PEASE: Yes, let's -- would you like to make your second motion now on the back half of that? MR. HYDE: Yes. As we currently do not have any venue for the public, or it's very difficult for the public to make comments, positive, negative or other, in regards to the fares or handling of the drivers or conditions of the taxis, that we require the taxi operators to place information, via a sticker, in a public area of the cab, giving a number to either staff, and also require there be either a picture I.D. or a name of the actual driver so that we don't have various drivers operating specific leased vehicles and not be being able to figure out who's who. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Do we have a second to a motion to require taxi operators to place information via sticker in the public area of the cab for complaints, either using a picture I.D. Page 30 November 7, 2000 or the name of the driver?. MR. FLEGAL: I would second it. And I would like the motion to amend it rather than saying a sticker or a picture, I would like to have the picture or name. Just to have a sticker, I think it's unfair to the firm that somebody call in and say gee, I took a ride and your cab was terrible and now they don't know who that was, although they're supposed to be on the trip ticket; hopefully you can figure that out. MS. BAISLEY: Shouldn't this document be a uniform document that's done -- MR. HYDE: It should be. By staff. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Correct. MS. BAISLEY: -- so drivers could go down and get their-- THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, I had a few people talking at the same time. CHAIRMAN PEASE: The answer was yes, staff should do that and present it to us for approval. And I also would suggest that we amend it that we make this effective when the new stickers -- staff recommended when the new stickers come out in January, I think that's the right time. Is that okay with you to amend those two items? MR. HYDE: That's fine. MR. FLEGAL: I'd second it on that basis. CHAIRMAN PEASE: All right, I'm almost going to ask her to repeat the motion, but I think I've got it. Okay, all those in favor, aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.) MR. CSOGI: I've got a discussion. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. MR. CSOGI: There's going to be an increased work that has to be done by the county now, and of course with issuing pictures and stickers and all that, there's going to be increased costs. Would that cost be relayed on to the annual renewal of the taxi permits? CHAIRMAN PEASE: I think that goes to the taxi operator to do that, not necessarily staff to pay for that, other than the form. We're not going to go take pictures of every driver -- MR. CSOGI: I just want to make sure that it doesn't go to the taxi -- Page 31 November 7, 2000 CHAIRMAN PEASE: We're going to require taxi operators is what the motion said, require taxi operators to do that. MS. ARNOLD: What we would be doing is issuing the sticker that -- or, you know, the complaint number, that information, and then we would be requiring the operator to have that I.D. -- MR. CSOGI: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: -- alongside with that sticker in the cab. And that would require us amending the ordinance to reflect those -- MR. PALMER: Yeah, there's some policy questions here. The way as to -- as a matter of fact, when I was driving a taxicab, the City of Washington D.C. did this. It was a standard form plastered with your picture on it. Had a large number, like 3515. And it said if you have a problem, call Washington D.C. Police Department and complain about driver 3515. It seems like if we're going to get a standard face, it's called, that it probably should be issued by the county or somebody contracted on behalf of the county so that everybody has the exact same looking thing and has to show it, so that any passenger of the car can see this at the time they're sitting in the taxicab. And therefore, they can say -- they can complain about taxicab 3515. We'll have a cross-reference to index and we'll know that's Mr. Jones of ABC Taxi Company. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, what we could do is have, you know, numbers. Because each sticker has a unique number, we can have a unique number, if it's the same sticker number associated with that complaint number, so that they can call in that number. MS. BAISLEY: But you're going to have different drivers in a vehicle. You could have two or three drivers in one vehicle. MR. PALMER: Well, as long as they have their face showing when they're driving. MS. BAISLEY: They can't be the same number -- what she's saying is the sticker number of your vehicle would be the same number on the -- MR. PALMER: No, it's actually every driver has his own number, vehicle number. MS. BAISLEY: The driver's number would be different than the vehicle's -- CHAIRMAN PEASE: There's a time log, though, that every dispatch has that knows what driver's in what cab. But maybe -- my suggestion is that maybe we put this on the Page 32 November 7, 2000 agenda item for January, with the understanding that we're not going to implement this in 2001 initially, and that we have further discussions, since there are some issues -- MR. PALMER: As far as budgetary is concerned, to the extent that this -- the cost isn't in their budget and they can't absorb it with their cost, then the question is are they going to raise the application fee on the annual basis $10.00 or whatever, that's an administrative matter. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I think it's a good item, and I think -- MR. HYDE: I think it's something that needs to be brought out, and I think it's something that also should be -- to go to the County Commissioners so that they're aware of what we're trying to do and where we're trying to go. MR. PALMER: The thing about it is, is that nobody knows for sure that the man sitting behind that wheel is a driver that's been authorized by Collier County to operate that vehicle. MR. FLEGAL.' Correct. That's what's scary. It shouldn't reflect on the cab company. MR. PALMER: And they have no way to know that that's driver 3515, in the event that he's rude or whatever. But if they have some kind of legitimate complaint, they'll know who to call and to be specific about who they're talking -- what individual they're talking about. MR. HYDE: And it could also be on a positive side, where the gentleman is not necessarily rude, but could be really a great driver. And-- MR. PALMER: That would be nice, but I don't think too many people give kudos to good taxicab drivers. It's unfortunate. If they think about it, they thank the driver and give him a good tip, but I don't think they'd call and say I had a nice driver today. It would be nice if they did. CHAIRMAN PEASE: So we had a vote. Do we rescind that vote then? MR. PALMER: No. If you want, I'd just direct staff to come back with a specific recommendation to you about how to work this face issue. MR. CSOGI: Why don't we keep the number for now. MR. PALMER: And they could come back to the next meeting with a definitive recommendation for you. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Could we do it in stages? Could we do Page 33 November 7, 2000 the sticker first and then we could make that effective. And then come back with a picture situation after we've had some discussion. MR. CSOGI: We are coming into season. MR. PALMER: You could. The thing about it is that what's the -- give it to the industry and find out what's the best way to put a sticker, where should it go, how big should it be, things like that, so that it's there and isn't removable, but it actually tells a passenger who they can contact. These are, you know, mechanical issues. But there probably is a better way to do -- a certain way, or at least a couple of ways that are better than all others. And I think the industry would be the best source of comment on issues like that. That's my personal opinion. MS. BAISLEY: I think we should wait and get it all into one thing with the driver's picture, the vehicle number, the phone number to call if you have a complaint. MR. PALMER: Actually, if it's done properly and the face is large enough, it can all be accomplished on this piece of plastic, and you don't need two separate items. MS. BAISLEY: Exactly. And I don't think it would take us that long to come up with the right information that we want to supply to the public. MR. FLEGAL: Why don't we table it till next meeting, to maybe get some more information. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Do you table the motion? MR. HYDE: That's fine with me. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Motion -- would you please put that, staff, on the agenda for the next meeting? MS. ARNOLD: Sure. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay, are we ready to move on? Next item is Naples Taxi, which was continued from t 0-3, request to operate a taxi charter service. Is George here today? Would you please come forward, be sworn in. MS. BAISLEY: Not attempting that last name? CHAIRMAN PEASE: No. I deferred it to you last time and I'll just go forward. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. ARNOLD: Before we go on, I'm sorry, I'd just like to publicly thank Tom Nohl and the utility regulation department for Page 34 November 7, 2000 all the hard work that they've done for the surcharge issue and the rate change issue. They were just wonderful. And I just wanted to do that publicly. MR. HYDE: Thank you. I agree. MR. FLEGAL: Thank you, Tom. MR. CSOGI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Where were we when we last left this topic? MR. CSOGI: There was not a corporation. It was dissolved. MS. BAISLEY: Dissolved. MR. FLEGAL: Yeah, there was some -- MS. BAISLEY: Now we have the fictitious name filing. MR. FLEGAL: -- questions as to was there in fact a corporation in existence, and who was the owner of that corporation, if there was one, were a couple of the major questions. MR. COKOROGIANIS: Well, yes and no. I had no idea that the corporation was no longer in existence until I left here. And I went to the office and called the State of Florida so that I could reinstate my corporation, and I was told that I couldn't because it was taken by someone else, a competitor of mine, a week before this meeting. So then I had to file for another corporation, which I did, which you should have in hand. And if not, I'd given one to Maria yesterday. And I also filed for my fictitious name through the newspaper, which she has an article of the newspaper that -- the Naples Taxi as being a fictitious name. And if you need a copy of the person that has that corporation now, which is not a business, just has the name, I have it in my briefcase here, if you'd like it, so that you're aware of-- CHAIRMAN PEASE: That's up to you. Do you want to make it part of the public record or not? MR. COKOROGIANIS: Yes, I really would like to. MR. CSOGI: Well, this states there was a name change. Was the corporation actually reinstated, or do you have to reinstate it to do a name change? MS. ARNOLD: The original corporation was Naples Taxi Services, Inc. MR. CSOGI: Right. Page 35 November 7, 2000 MS. ARNOLD: And I think he was unable to use that name any longer. So now the new corporation is Naples Taxi, Inc. Services was dropped. MR. CSOGI: I know, so he's -- is there documentation saying that he has that corporation? I don't see a corporate filing here. MS. BAISLEY: The document that was just given to us is an Articles of Amendment. MR. CSOGI: Right. It's an amendment -- MR. COKOROGIANIS: For Naples Taxicab, Inc. Because I went -- I put the name Naples Taxicab, and then I didn't like the name so I made an amendment to make it Naples Taxicab, Inc., and that says it right on there. MR. CSOGI: Right. But what's going on is you've changed what's in your Articles of Incorporation. You actually haven't renewed them, which was the question they were -- MR. COKOROGIANIS: Of the old corporation. MR. CSOGI: Right. It's a new corporation, okay? MR. COKOROGIANIS: The old corporation couldn't be renewed because it was taken already a week before this meeting. It took four years for someone to discover that it wasn't available. It just doesn't make sense to me. I'm sorry I'm getting upset, but it just doesn't make sense. It took four years, and a week before this meeting it was discovered. Please. CHAIRMAN PEASE: You're talking about the previous meeting? MR. COKOROGIANIS: Before the last meeting I came here on October 3rd. It took four years. MR. FLEGAL: So now you have a new corporation with a new name. MR. COKOROGIANIS: Now I have a new corporation, legally, Naples Taxi, as far as the fictitious name goes. And I have my attorney here, because he can speak a lot better than I would, and I'd appreciate it if you would allow him to. Thank you. CHAIRMAN PEASE: You're welcome to speak. MR. FLEGAL: Well, let's see if we have any more questions first. CHAIRMAN PEASE: He needs to be sworn in. on behalf with them. MR. FLEGAL: I'm satisfied so far. (Speaker was duly sworn.) He can speak Page 36 November 7, 2000 MR. McDONALD: I don't think I'll be testifying about facts, unless you consider the law a fact. Mr. Cokorogianis owns a new corporation, Naples Taxicab, Inc., that's doing business as Naples Taxi. Naples Taxi as a business has operated continuously for 20 years, so there's no deception on the public. It is unfortunate that a competitor took the name of the former corporation by filing with Secretary of State. But that's a matter between Mr. Cokorogianis and the competitor. It's not something that would have any effect on the public, because he has complied with the state statute on registration of the name Naples Taxi. Anyone doing business with him knows who they're doing business with. And he's now applying to you with a proper corporation to be licensed as Naples Taxi. MR. FLEGAL: Staff, are we keeping the same color combination? Would we be keeping the same -- MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Yeah, we're keeping the same color combination. The only thing that's changed is the name. MR. FLEGAL: Okay. MS. BAISLEY: And all the other documents will reflect the proper name now? Because the documents are still supplied here as -- like the insurance certificate says Naples Taxi and Limo. MS. ARNOLD: He provided all that to our office yesterday. MS. BAISLEY: We don't have copies of that, so -- MR. McDONALD: All of those amendment corrections were made. MS. ARNOLD: If you'd like to see a copy of it, we have copies. Would you, Ms. Baisley? MS. BAISLEY: It's not necessary. MR. FLEGAL: No, if staff has the correct insurance and the registration will be changed to reflect the proper corporation and so on and so forth, if we would approve such. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Do we have a motion? MR. HYDE: I make a motion to approve. If staff has all proper documentation and all that, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be approved. MR. FLEGAL: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN PEASE: All those in favor? Page 37 November 7, 2000 Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: Motion carried. MR. COKOROGIANIS: Thank you. MR. FLEGAL: Good luck. MS. BAISLEY: I would like to make just one comment. On the insurance certificates that we're receiving, they don't say the category of motor vehicle that's for hire here, which is a requirement on Page 26 of our ordinance. It needs to say taxicab or sedan, charter service. And these certificates that have all been -- being entered do not have that on it. And some of these insurance companies are not licensed to provide certain classes of insurance services. MR. PALMER: Yeah, the question is, is you don't know it until there's a claim -- MS. BAISLEY: Right. MR. PALMER: -- and then they deny liability because it's outside the scope of their powers. MS. BAISLEY: Right. MR. PALMER: And I think you're right, we've got to nail down the fact that when we get an insurance certificate, the insurance has the power to do it and has in fact insured this particular activity. And with it not being on there, it's sort of an open question. It's not nailed down for the record. MS. BAISLEY: And it is part of the ordinance that says that it's supposed to be on the insurance certificate. MR. CSOGI: Add that to the agenda -- to the next amendment -- CHAIRMAN PEASE: Well, staff needs to make that standard operating procedure. MR. CSOGI: It's already in there, that's right. MR. FLEGAL: Yeah. I mean, they're the ones than get the certificate to start with. If it's not a proper certificate, they shouldn't submit it to us. MR. PALMER: Right. And the thing about it is you never know until something happens, and then after the fact you're sorely disappointed because there's no coverage. And we really need to know there's coverage going in. MS. BAISLEY: Right. MR. FLEGAL: I think that's a staff function. When you get a Page 38 November 7, 2000 certificate, make sure it says that on the bottom. If it doesn't, reject it. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, we can do that. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Just one comment about -- I think also Pat had a good point about checking the corporations on-line before the meetings. I think that's something that should be standard operating procedure as well. I am troubled by the fact that it ends up being Russ Baisley, and you came forward with the information and didn't disclose all of it. You didn't have an obligation to do so, but I think it reflects on this committee somewhat negative. And it would have been maybe a suggestion to -- MS. BAISLEY: Well, I'm not-- CHAIRMAN PEASE: -- went forward. MS. BAISLEY: -- in complete control with what my husband does. I mean, we are individuals. I do own the business completely by myself. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I understand, you did not have to come forward with that information. Any other reports? Any other discussion? Next meeting date is January 2nd, 2001. Is that an acceptable date for staff? Hangovers? I want that on the record, hangovers. Okay, are we still okay with that? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Do I have a motion to adjourn? MS. BAISLEY: There's a request for comments. CHAIRMAN PEASE: That was -- that was not taken. Do I have a motion to -- MR. FLEGAL: I make a motion we adjourn. MR. CSOGI: Second it. CHAIRMAN PEASE: All those in favor, say aye. Opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: Motion carried. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:40 a.m. Page 39 November 7, 2000 PUBLIC VEHICLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE BRYAN L.S. PEASE, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, RPR Page 40